Below is the complete transcript of a debate between Jason Lisle and Hugh Ross on the ëDr Bob Grantí radio program which was held in December of 2004.

Grant: Good afternoon everyone. It’s Dr Bob Grant
here. You’re tuned to 100.7 KGFT. At this Christmas season you might ask yourself why talk about young earth/old
earth? Why talk about things having to do with creation? Here we are so close
to Christmas, but as you discovered in our conversation
with Dr Hugh Ross from Reasons To Believe last week, there were varied
thoughts and opinions about how this might reflect upon the credibility of
Scripture, the veracity of Scripture.

And received numerous emails and comments following that
particular program with Dr Ross. And it certainly warranted, in my thinking,
the opportunity to revisit this subject the week before Christmas, and really take a good look, a good in-depth look at how
in fact we are affected by how we view the opening chapters of Genesis.

And as you recall, we discussed with Dr Hugh Ross a number
of things: astrological phenomena and the star over … that shined over
Bethlehem.

Grant: And the implications of that in terms of some
kind of phenomena or something that occurred in the heavenly, something that
took place.

And also we talked about A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation
Controversy.

Grant: And so I wanted to revisit this and give an opportunity
for a number of different views and points of view of this particular subject.
And we’re going to do that today with Dr Hugh Ross from Reasons
To Believe along with Dr Jason Lisle who is with the organization, or
the ministry, called Answers in Genesis.

Grant: [Introductions omitted] … And I maybe give you an opportunity to
greet one another, Dr Lisle and Dr Ross. I’m assuming
maybe you’ve had an occasion to meet.

Ross: We haven’t. This is our first meeting.

Lisle: That’s right, yes.

Grant: Well I’m pleased to have you both on the
program today and delighted to be able to talk about something that is important
to many of our listeners in this audience. And what I would like to do, Dr Ross, if I could begin with you and invite you to offer some comment about
your belief about the opening segment of Genesis and particularly the depiction
of days of creation. And how that has bearing on the credibility of Scripture.
And that is a very, very important subject at this time of year because people
want to know that what they have in the biblical narrative is accurate and
it is trustworthy. And some people think, well, how you view those opening
chapters of Genesis will affect and impact how you view the rest of the entire
Bible. So, first of all Dr Ross I would invite you to make some comment on
that subject.

Ross: Well, I think that’s a subject that Jason
and I both agree on.

Ross: That it’s very important on how you look
at Genesis 1; and your interpretation of Genesis 1 will affect how you read
the rest of Scripture. I think we would also both agree that it’s critical
that we take the Genesis text both literally and consistently. So we agree
we need to believe … do believe … that the Bible is inerrant cover
to cover on all disciplines including science and history.

Ross: And therefore, we feel compelled to take the writings in Genesis
1–11 literally. And also we take the other creation accounts in the
rest of the Bible literally. I think where we divide is that I take a different
literal interpretation of the Hebrew word translated ‘day’ in Genesis
1 than Jason does. The word yôm that translated ‘day’ has 4 different
literal definitions: a part of the daylight hours, all of the daylight hours,
a 24-hour period, or a long but finite period of time.

Ross: And I take the view that Genesis 1 is describing 6 consecutive,
long periods of time for God’s creation activity, followed by a period
in which God rests from his work of creating new forms of life on planet Earth
or performing miracles to transform the earth physically for different species
of life for the intent to create.

Grant: Now with that in mind, then, what I hear you saying
is that you don’t disavow a literal interpretation based upon that.
And so therefore, you don’t believe the credibility of Scripture is
impacted or affected by holding to those days being epic periods of time.
If I could go to you, Dr Lisle, just sort of an introductory thought in response
to my opening question about how one interprets and understands the opening
chapters of Genesis. And that having bearing on how a person views the rest
of Scripture.

Lisle: What is very important and we would say that the word … the Hebrew
word … for day, of course it means ‘day’ normally. That’s the normal literal
meaning. Dr Ross, I think, is using a non-literal definition of the word
literal. But the ordinary meaning of day is that God created in, you know,
in a day. And that’s the context that Genesis 1 requires because God qualifies
it with the qualifiers like ‘evening and morning’ and He qualifies it with
things like number, you know the first day. And ... the first day is
even qualified with ‘night’. So it’s very clear that God is talking about ordinary,
approximately 24 hours, 24-hour days in Genesis 1.

‘If, for example, the word “day” in these chapters does
not mean a period of twenty-four hours, the interpretation of Scripture is
hopeless’.

Lisle: The particular hermeneutical fallacy that Dr
Ross committed is called an unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic
field. That’s a fancy way of saying that if you’re taking a word that
can have more than one meaning and you’re taking it from one context
and placing into another context where it can’t mean that. That’s
the particular fallacy that he has committed in Genesis. And of course, we’ve
pointed that out before on our webpage
at AnswersInGenesis.org. We have articles on that.

Lisle: But what’s the big deal here? Why is this
so important? Well, one of the reasons is because, see, the Bible makes it
very clear that death is the wages for sin. It’s a penalty for sin.
And if we hold to a millions-of-years kind of view, as Dr Ross holds to,
where you have death and suffering before Adam sinned, then death really isn’t
the penalty for sin, is it? You’ve got, you know you’ve got, all
this suffering, you’ve got disease before Adam sinned, and so that really, disease and suffering are God’s fault if you hold to Dr Ross’
view. And we would say from Scripture, if you read the Scriptures, it’s
clear that all creation groans because of Adam’s sin and that one place
to look at would be Romans chapter 8 for example.

Grant: … Dr Jason Lisle has proposed that the idea of epochs makes allowance for death and decay prior to Adam’s sin and Dr Hugh Ross, I’d like to give you an opportunity to respond to that, please.

Ross: Sure, Romans 5:12 addresses this issue explicitly.

Ross: Let me quote it. It says, ‘just as sin entered
the world through one man and death through sin and in this way death came
to all men because of all sin’. Notice in that text that Paul makes
two qualifiers about the kind of death that Adam introduced. It’s death
through sin; the point there being only one species can die through sin—that’s
the human species. And then it says death came to all men, human beings. So
Paul is very careful to exclude the plants and the animals.

Ross: We know there was death going on before Adam sinned
because you go back to Genesis 1, and we see that Adam and Eve are eating.
And the eating would require the death of plants or plant parts.

Ross: We also see in Psalm 104 that, well let me just
quote the text. It says, referring to God, ‘when you hide your face
they are terrified. When you take away their breath they die and return to
the dust. When you send your spirit you renew the face of the earth’.

Ross: And what’s going on during the first 6 creation
days is God is creating new species of life to replace those that go extinct
but on the seventh day He ceases from that work.

Ross: And that something we notice, we can’t document
the appearance of a single animal species in the world of nature since the
appearance of human beings.

Ross: But we can easily document it before. So death
of plants and animals once taking place before Adam was created, but human
death does not happen until Adam has sinned in the Garden of Eden.

Grant: O.K., let’s uh, Dr Lisle, really give you
an opportunity really to talk to each other in this segment. You know rather
than just filtering this through me. Your response to Dr Ross, Dr Lisle.

Lisle: Well, of course Romans 5:12
is concentrating on the death of man. I understand that. But it’s also very
clear if you read Scripture, you know from the beginning to the end, that
it was animal death as well that was introduced by sin. I mean, think about
it. What did God do when Adam sinned? He killed an animal to provide clothing
for them. And so you see, what, basically what it comes down to is this: what
did sin do to the world if you hold to millions of years? Well, as far as
I can tell it didn’t do too much to the world. But according to Scripture,
sin ruined the world. You see, Adam was given the responsibility over all
of creation and so his sin affected all of creation. And so because Adam sinned,
all the animals suffered as well because of that. It’s not God’s fault then,
it’s man’s fault.

Ross: … When Adam sinned, it wasn’t the universe
that changed or the physics of the earth that changed, it was Adam and his
descendants that changed.

Ross: And because of their sin, that brought ruination
onto their environment. I mean, you see in Jeremiah 33:25 that the laws that
governed the heavens and the earth are fixed. It’s not the universe, it’s the human species that changed.

Grant: Now, in one curious point to me, Dr Lisle if
I may ask the question, the idea that food was being consumed or that there
was some kind of end of life process for plant or vegetation prior to the
Fall. That is a thought or an idea introduced into this conversation that
perhaps you could respond to that directly.

Lisle: Of course. And Ross’s mistake here was taking the
scientific definition for death and assuming that that’s the same as the biblical
definition for life and death. And they’re not the same, you see. In science,
life is defined in a particular way, but according to Scripture, plants are
not alive. The Hebrew word nephesh chayyah—it’s referring to
living souls, and the Bible doesn’t apply that to plants. Plants you can think
of as biological machines. They’re not alive in a biblical sense, animals
are and human beings are.

Ross: Well, Jason, I’ve refuted that in a thing
that’s up on our Reasons.org website where I list a number of
passages in the Old Testament where plants are referred to as experiencing
life and death. And the interesting thing is that the identical word used
to refer to the life and death of humans are also those words that are used in that
context.

Lisle: And no, again nephesh chayyah is not.
The Bible does not use that in terms of plants. I’m sorry about that,
and we have posted that on our website.

Ross: The point is that Scripture does refer to plants
as experiencing life and death using the identical word it uses for the
life and death of humans.

Lisle: Well, again what I’m saying is the Hebrew phrase
for nephesh chayyah, living soul, is not used for plants, and you can
check
at our website on that. We’ve got that up on our site: AnswersInGenesis.org.

Grant: Ah, go ahead Dr Ross.

Ross: I’m just saying that I do acknowledge that
Scripture identifies 2 different kinds of life—3 different kinds actually—life
is purely physical, life is physical and soulish, and in the human species alone,
that’s body, soul and spirit. But this discussion’s immaterial
to the point we’re making: does Scripture refer to plants as experiencing
life and death, and it’s quite clear that it does.

Grant: And your comment, Dr Lisle … .

Lisle: Well, again, I don’t know how many times I can
say it, but nephesh chayyah, the Bible does not endorse using that term
on plants. Plants are not alive in a biblical sense. And I mean, think about
it. Plants don’t experience suffering or pain like animals do.

Lisle: They’re a different category. They’re
a biological machine that God created, but they’re not living. And so
if you think about it, I mean God called everything that He’d made very
good when he first made it. Think about that? Imagine if there was millions
of years of death and suffering in there? Is that very good?

Ross: Scripture doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t say
that only soulish animals experience life and death. It attributes that to
all life, plants and animals included.

Grant: Then what do you believe, Dr Ross? Because this
has been stated in one form or another. Why do you not believe that the idea
of death before the fall of man and the sin of Adam and Eve, why does that
in your mind not minimize or in some way reduce the implications of sin and
the consequences of sin?

Ross: I don’t see it as a cruel act that God would
bring about the death of plants and animals before Adam sinned. Plants and
animals are in a totally different category. They’re not spiritual beings.
They’re not eternal in their context. The death of plants and animals
from a biblical perspective is something that’s quite good in a sense
that it prepares the planet for human beings.

Ross: I mean the very fact that we’ve got coal and oil and natural gas and concentrated metal ores in the earth is testimony to the billions of years of God creating plants and animals in a secession. To make it possible not only for us to live on this planet but to develop civilization and technology.

Grant: … Dr Lisle, I would like your response
to this question: what bearing or what significance does your position have
on how people understand Scripture? And maybe another way and sort of an amplified
form of that question is what difference does it make if a person sees epochs
versus 24-hour periods?

Lisle: Well, you know I think the difference is how you
read Scripture. Do you read it eisegetically or exegetically?
And those are basically words meaning do you read into Scripture or do you
read out of Scripture? Do we take our opinions of how the universe is—man’s
ideas, secular ideas—and try to back-read those into the Bible? Or do we start
from the Bible and let it speak to us?

And I would say if you let the Bible speak to you and you don’t
back-read into it, it’s very clear that God made [everything] in 6 days, thousands of years
ago. It’s only when we take ideas—you know the big bang, things like
that … we don’t get the millions of years from the Bible, we get it from secular
ideas. And then people back-read that into the Bible.

And the problem with that is if you can do it in Genesis you
can do it anywhere. I mean after all science has never documented a resurrection
from the dead. I mean, should we reinterpret those passages in the gospels
where Jesus has risen from the dead to fit with our secular ideas of how life
and death work? Not at all. We should start from Scripture and we understand
that Jesus rose from the dead because it’s recorded in the Word of God. And
so I believe in 6 days of creation because it’s recorded in the Word of God.

Grant: O.K. and Dr Ross as you indicated and represented
at the opening of the program today, you do not believe that your position
for any reason violates the integrity of Scripture.

Ross: Not at all and I would object to the idea that
I’m back-reading into Scripture or that I’m not starting from
Scripture. I mean I didn’t meet Christians until 27 years of age. When
I first read the Bible, it was clear to me that these had to be long periods
of time. I just saw no way to keep the text contradiction-free unless they
were long periods of time. I was driven by the text …

Ross: … and you know in my book, A Matter
of Days, I make the point that there are 20 major creation accounts in
the Bible.

Ross: And we can settle our disputes over which literal
interpretation of Genesis 1 we go with, is to see how well they fit with the
rest of the Bible.

Ross: So age 17 I was reading through it. What I did
was looked at this issue in the context of the entire Bible, and I can honestly
say that my astronomy did not factor in to that interpretation.

Grant: … Hi Isaac (guest caller). …

Isaac: Ah, yes I just got on kind of late, and I heard
the part about whether I think plants have life or whatever. The only thing
I was going to make a comment was the fact that I think in Leviticus it talks
about how life is found in the blood, and therefore, God commanded us not
to I think eat the blood or drink the blood. And also, in conclusion, the
verse that says without the shedding of blood there’s no remissions
for sins. So, the blood is what sort of, like, saves our lives. And that was
my whole comment.

Grant: O.K. so you’re saying that it takes the
presence of blood or the shedding of blood to, let us say, define what loss
of life is in one sense of the word. Is that what I’m hearing?

Isaac: Yeah because I mean the whole fact that Christ
died on the cross and you know the shedding of blood covers our sins and saves
our lives. That’s also an indication of you know I think of life and
again in Leviticus it states that the life of the animal …

Grant: Yeah, you’re talking about 17:11,
‘for the life of any creatures is in it’s blood and I’ve given
you the blood so you can make an atonement for your sins’. That’s
the verse you are referring to I believe.

Isaac: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Grant: Yeah, then is there a question here? I mean or you just making an observation?

Isaac: Yeah I was just thinking, I was just trying to
say that I don’t personally I don’t believe that you know plants
are having … they’re alive but I don’t think they have any
life. Is that what they were talking about? I’m not sure.

Grant: Well, the idea was, and Dr Ross you can speak
for yourself here rather than me interpreting you, that the idea of making
the point that Adam and Eve obviously were consuming vegetation which would
indicate that something was coming to the end of a life process there.

Ross: Well right, and an answer to Isaac I mean you really
want to look at the entire Bible before you decide what the Bible calls living
or dead. For example you can go to Exodus 3–10 where it’s talking
about the plagues that are poured down upon Egypt, and there
it makes it quite clear that Scripture is saying that plants do experience
life and death in the same way the soulish animals do, in the same way that
human beings do.

Ross: The passage of Leviticus 17:11, life in the
creature, the creature there is referring to these nephesh creatures,
these soulish creatures, so it’s referring to one particular kind of
life, not life in general. And you want to look at the rest of Scripture and
see how it treats other forms of life.

Grant: Any response to that Dr Lisle?

Lisle: As I’ve said before, you know, plants are not
alive in a nephesh chayy‚h sense, and therefore, they don’t die in
a nephesh chayy‚h sense. And … I do agree that the Bible makes
a big point of the life being in the blood. So that is certainly foundational
to the gospel message.

Grant: … Daniel you’re on 100.7 KGFT. …

Daniel: … There are two things that have always
bothered me about both the young earth theory and the belief that the earth
is billions of years old. For the one thing, I’m thinking the earth
cannot be as young as some people believe because not all the people who have
lived and died on the earth have ever been counted. You know what I mean?
…

Grant: Yeah, I think I hear what you’re saying ... go ahead.

Daniel: So that not to mention the existence of fossils. On the other
hand, I finding it hard to believe the earth is billions of years old. I have
a problem with that because it cannot be proven empirically. So what do you
call it if you can’t prove empirically even that a billion years has
elapsed? …

Grant: I’ll give each of you a chance. Go ahead
Dr Ross.

Ross: Yeah, there is strong empirical
evidence that the earth is 4.566 billion years old. I mean we have a number
of radiometric tools and non-radiometric tools.

Grant: I’m going to ask you to listen off air if
you will Daniel just because of the background noise. Go ahead Dr Ross, please.
Thank you.

Ross: Sure. No, I’m saying that there is strong
empirical evidence, and all you’ve got to do is talk to your
friendly neighborhood physicist, and they’ll confirm that there is indeed
abundant evidence that the earth is 4.566 billion years old.

Ross: If you want to go to our website, we post a number of
articles in ‘Today’s New Reason to Believe’ listing some of the
latest new experimental tools for dating the age of the earth. And I think
that’s a good way to settle this. If I’m right and Jason is wrong,
then additional new tools should verify that the earth indeed is billions
of years old. But if I’m wrong and Jason is right, new tools that are
developing should show that the earth is young. So, let’s just see how
consistent radiometric dating proves to be as the months go by but already
the past six months have all been in favor of the old earth model.

Grant: … Dr Lisle, back to you in response to
Dr Ross and radiometric measuring devices and the fact that he believes that
in recent times in this past year that there’s a continuing evidence
that favors an old earth idea.

Lisle: Yes, well it’s very interesting. I talked with
‘my friendly neighborhood physicist’, Dr Russ Humphreys, and he
claims that he’s one of those people like myself who believes in the
straightforward reading of Scripture that the earth is thousands of years
old, not millions or billions.

And he’s been doing some very interesting research on radiometric
decay, radiometric dating. And it turns out that there’s compelling evidence
that the rate of decay has not always been constant, and if that’s so then
all of these dates that give millions of years would be out the window. And
interestingly enough there are a lot of dates that don’t give millions or
billions of years anyway.

Carbon dating never gives millions or billions of years even
on things that evolutionists say it should like coal beds, for example.

Lisle: Furthermore, we know that radiometric dating gives inflated
ages because we can test it on rocks of known age. For example, we can take
a rock from Mt St
Helens, we’ve done this. We had, it’s a recent volcanic eruption,
you know that this happened in 1980, so less than 30 years ago. We had those
rocks radiometrically dated. You will get, you know, hundreds to thousands
to millions of years on those rocks. So, it’s clear that’s giving
a wrong answer. That it’s inflated.

Lisle: And one of the reasons might be an accelerated
radioactive decay,

Lisle: … but there’s some other reasons that
can cause it to be off too.

Lisle: But you know it’s interesting scientifically—scientifically,
you can’t actually date the earth because if you think about it. When
you’re asking the age of something you’re not asking a science
question. You’re asking a history question because you’re
asking when something happened. In this case, when was the earth created?

And the best way to answer a history question
is of course a history book. One that’s been shown to be authentic, like
the Bible. The Bible is the only foolproof way to date the earth. The Bible
gives thousands of years. And of course there are scientific evidences that
line up with Scripture.

Lisle: Sediments on the seafloor for example, rivers
wash in sediments on the seafloor, 25 billion tons a year, and the only way
we get rid of it is subduction. And that only accounts for about one billion
tons per year. It’s consistent with thousands of years but not with
millions or billions.

Grant: … And my point of view in bringing this
to you today is, in the final analysis, for you to have confidence in the
biblical narrative. And that is no more emphasized right now. We couldn’t
emphasize this any stronger than we would at this time of year concerning
the birth of Christ, the events and the circumstances surrounding the advent
of Jesus Christ. And how your confidence in those facts, as reported in the
Bible, are affected by how you view these opening chapters in Genesis. That
seems to be the crux of the matter. … Thanks for waiting, Eric; go ahead.

Eric: … I wanted to address your question, Dr Grant,
that you just made about whether or not it has an impact, I guess, on the
credibility of the Word or how we view Scripture. I honestly think there’s
great arguments on both sides of the table, and you know, I haven’t
come to a stance on it. But it has not affected the way that I have interpreted the
Bible one bit because God’s character’s consistent throughout
it, and the bottom line is the Word’s not supposed to be a history of
creation. It’s history of mankind, and God’s salvation plan for
mankind. So whether you believe in an old earth or a young earth, I honestly
don’t believe it makes a difference. So long as you understand that
the character of God and the relationship that were supposed to have with
Him.

Grant: … All right go ahead, Dr Lisle, your response.
Eric not being affected one way or another at least believing that he’s
not affected one way or another. Your thought.

Lisle: O.K., well, you know I think it does affect God’s
character. I mean he brought up God’s character. What kind of God do we serve?
Do we serve a God who created death and suffering and disease? Well, I didn’t
think so.

I think we serve a perfect God who created
a perfect world. A world that we ruined by rejecting that God. You see God
gave us, He gave Adam dominion over the earth; and then when Adam sinned against
Him, God removed some of His sustaining power.

Not that He changed the laws of physics or anything like that,
but He removed some of His sustaining power allowing the earth to really decay
into the bondage of corruption, the bondage of sin.

And that’s, you know, that’s important, because
that’s crucial to the salvation message. Because if you think about
it, why it is that we can’t just sort of be good enough to get into
heaven? Why is it that sin is so devastating?

Well, think about it. One sin ruined paradise. And God has said
O.K. that’s not going to happen with the new heavens and the new earth.
Not even one sin can come into it, and that’s a big problem for us because
we’ve all sinned. We all come short of the glory of God. But God himself
provided the solution for us. He made the way through Jesus Christ our Lord.
And by Christ paying for our sins, and He can do that because he is both man and God. He’s man, He’s
related to us, and He’s God, He can pay an infinite penalty. And so that’s
how we can enter into the new paradise, the new heaven and the new earth which
will be perfect again.

Grant: … Dr Hugh Ross, the idea of something that
Jason just said, the idea that God created death and suffering prior
to the Fall. How do you respond to that?

Ross: Well, I would agree with Eric that when God created
the universe and the earth is immaterial to biblical inerrancy or the doctrine
of salvation. Much more important is Who creates and how He creates. You know
it tells us in Genesis 1 that the first creation was very good. The perfect
creation comes later. I mean at Reasons To Believe we hold a two-creation
model. That God created this universe, put Adam and Eve in a paradisiacal
state, but God’s in the business of, through sin and suffering and our
exposure to evil, to train and prepare us to receive something far superior
to paradise. The new creation that Paul says no-one can think or imagine how great and wonderful it will
be. You know to me that’s the great news about the Bible unlike the
other religions that simply promise that we’ll be restored to paradise.
We’re going to be delivered from paradise. And by the way, I was really
encouraged to hear Jason say that the laws of physics haven’t changed.
And I don’t know how he deals with the idea that the radiometric decay
rates were changing. That to me is a change in the laws of physics.

Ross: And in our book, A Matter of Days, we give one theological
reason and two scientific reasons why the radiometric decay rates could not
have been any different in the past than they are today. You’ve got
the ice cores, the radiometric elements we can measure in distant stars and
then the statement in Jeremiah 33:25.

Grant: I know each one of these points could be the subject
of an entire debate themselves. If I could come back and ask Dr Ross: your
response to the theological issue of death and suffering before we see God’s
redemptive initiative as it relates to Adam and Eve. How do you respond to
that? I mean obviously …

Ross: Yeah, I understand.

Grant: There’s a theological problem there. And
I’m sure you have some thoughts about that. What would that be?

Ross: Well, the position I see laid out in Romans 5 and
1 Corinthians 15 is the death of human beings that’s linked to sin:
this is the salvation message. The death of plants and animals is immaterial
to the message of salvation. It’s human death that was brought about
by Adam’s sin, and that one man Jesus has come back to deliver us from
the consequences of a spiritual death and a physical death. Plants and animals
were dying before Adam sinned; they continue to die today. And that will
happen until the new creation replaces this present creation that is dominated
by the laws of thermodynamics. As it tells us in Romans 8, the entire creation
is subject to the law of decay, and that law of decay causes things to break
down including plants and animals.

Grant: O.K. based upon that then would there, based upon
that idea or thesis, is it reasonable to conclude that in the future and maybe
let us say after the return of Christ and as we enter eternity, would you see
that there would still be a process of death …

Ross: Not at all.

Grant: … with the exception of human beings?

Ross: No, not at all, because when you read the opening
verses of Revelations 21 it tells us that the laws of physics are radically
changed after the Great White Throne Judgment. Jeremiah 33 is referring to
the laws that govern this heavens and this universe and this earth. But in
the new creation we enter a completely different realm with radically different
physics. No death, no decay there at all.

Grant: … Basically if you boil it all down we’re
talking about the difference in the ideas of old earth/young earth and the
bearing that might have in your confidence in Scripture. The ultimate intent
for having this program, as far as I’m concerned, is to enhance your
appreciation for what we have in the time-proven record of Scripture and the
credibility and veracity of Scripture, especially at this time of year. So
that you can trust and believe the report that’s recorded in the gospels
and the gospels themselves being a fulfillment of the prophetic message that
occurred some 700 to 800 years prior, say in Isaiah and other very, very important
verses of Scripture. …

Mary (caller): Hi. I wanted to make a comment, and then
I have a question and idea I wanted to pass through to them. The earth, we
go by the genealogy found in Genesis starting with Adam, and we add up all
those years up to the Flood. And that’s part of finding out the age
of the earth.

Mary: O.K. and then it says here in Genesis, the first
chapter, that when He created light, He separated the light from the darkness.
He called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’. So that to me that’s
a 24-hour thing because He said day and night. Now, this light I believe was
light from God because it isn’t until later in the days that He created
the sun and moon and stars. And I think this light is just like in Revelation
when we learn in God’s revelation, when we learn that the light that
we’re going to have there is not going to be the sun like we have today.
It’s going to be light coming from God.

Grant: Yeah it will be the glory of God.

Grant: And you said you had a question, Mary, associated
with it.

Mary: This is my theory about plant life.

Grant: Well, tell me, you said you had a question there.

Mary: Uh, this is a question. It’s a question on
my theory, you might call it. Let’s see if they agree with this. I believe
that plant life, because it doesn’t really matter if plants died or not,
but they … at this time when Adam and Eve were fist put upon the earth
we had a perfect, perfect environment. Therefore, I don’t think plants
died because they were constantly … the roots were constantly being nourished.
You know it didn’t rain from heaven during that time. We were in kind
of an umbrella.

Grant: Now, you’re talking about the canopy theory
and that idea. Sure.

Mary: I believe in the canopy theory and because of that,

Mary: I’d like for their opinion anyway, because
of that I don’t believe plants really died. I believe that they grew
so rapidly, then when Adam and Eve did eat some of the fruit and vegetables
that, that by the next morning you couldn’t even tell. So, anyway …

Grant: O.K. Well let’s see what their response
is, Mary. Thank you. Dr Lisle, I’m going to begin with you. That idea
that she was proposing. What do you say to it?

Lisle: O.K. well there’s lots there, wasn’t there? Regarding
the plants though I would say you know just to reiterate my position as earlier,
biblically they’re not alive so biblically they don’t die. They’re
biological machines that God created for us to sustain us and that’s clear,
and the animals as well by the way. If you read in Genesis 1, it’s clear that
God created the plants for us to eat and the animals as well. Animals wouldn’t
have eaten meat because there wouldn’t have been death.

Grant: So, if there was a biological system then the
idea of them decaying would not be problematic then. Is that right? Wouldn’t
be problematic in the light of the theological issues associated with Adam
and Eve’s sin and the fall of man.

Lisle: That’s right. Again, plants aren’t alive biblically
so there’s no problem with them being, decaying and being, recycled back into
the environment or you know individual cells in our skin—things like that
don’t have a consciousness. They’re not alive in a nephesh chayy‚h …

Grant interrupts: O.K. that doesn’t … All right
all right that doesn’t sound like that’s in conflict with Dr
Ross’ position on this … Dr Ross, before we go back to the lines,
any response to the comments from Dr Lisle? And gentlemen, please do feel
free to direct your comments or questions to one another.

Ross: Well, maybe I’ll direct it towards Mary because
she made a number of interesting points about her interpretation of Genesis
1. And one exhortation I can give to all listeners is that there’s three
other creation accounts in the Old Testament that actually take you through
the content of all 6 creation days. That’d be Job 38, Psalm 104 and
Proverbs chapter 8. And if you go to Job 38 verse 9, it addresses the issue
of the day and night of creation Day 1 and what about the sun, moon and stars
and when they were created. What it says is ‘when I made the clouds
its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness’. And the ‘it’ refers to the
primordial ocean of the earth, making it clear that it was dark on the surface
of the waters in Genesis 1:2. Not because God hadn’t created light already,
but because the oceans were wrapped in this atmospheric garment that kept
out the light of the sun, moon and stars from getting to the surface of the
waters. Genesis 1:2, again, the Sprit of God is brooding over the surface
of the waters. That’s the frame of reference of the point of view from
which we should interpret the 6 creation days. And in that context we’re
not looking at the sun being created on Day 4. That’s when it becomes
visible as an existing object, and the light is actually there from creation
Day 1 on forward. And the likewise you can go to Psalm 104 and to Proverbs
8. This is really one way you can put to the test conflicting differences.
I mean Jason and I take a different interpretation in Genesis 1. Well, one
of the ways to put it to the test is go to other creation text that clarify
these interpretations.

Grant: I’m sure you’ve considered that Dr
Lisle. Your thoughts.

Lisle: Yeah, well one of the things you don’t want to
do of course is take poetic passage and try to reinterpret literal history
in terms of, you know, metaphorical usage. That’s one thing you’ve got
to be careful not to do. Very clear that God did make the lights in the sky
on Day 4. Not that they appeared on Day 4. He made them on Day 4, and it’s
very clear from the words of Scripture in Genesis chapter 1.

Ross: Well, Jason you mean that Job 38 is not a literal
text?

Lisle: Job—a lot of Job is poetic.

Ross: How about Job 38?

Lisle: We can look at it if you like.

Ross: … but isn’t it referring to a literal
history?

Lisle: Let me take a … O.K. which passage, which verse
are you referring to?

Ross: Well, I’m referring to verse 9 in particular.
But I mean the entire chapter is a chapter I’m prepared to take literally ...
as well as Psalm 104.

Grant: What I would like to do if we can Jason while
you’re taking a look at that so you can respond in kind. Let me go to
the lines and receive a question. Phyllis you’re on 100.7 KGFT.

Phyllis (caller): O.K. This is a very interesting subject
to me because a few years ago I went to a conference and our speaker was Dr
Ron Alan. Now you might realize that he was the chief editor of the Old Testament
of the Nelson Study Bible, also the chief editor of the New King James Old
Testament. So I consider he’s a real Hebrew scholar and knows how to
interpret what the Hebrew words say. And he discussed it, this subject. And
I’ve listened to the tape over and over again since then. And his final
conclusion was that both views, of course, agree that God did it. And there
really isn’t any proof that either is the answer. But after listening
to his tape over and over again, it occurred to me that before the Flood, of
course, things were different. People lived to be close to a thousand years
old, and Ron said there are troubles with the 24-hour day when you think of
all the things that happened on the day that God created man. And of course
then Adam named all of the animals. He must have really been speedy at that.
But there are troubles, problems with both and yet they both agree that God
was the one who did it. So, Ron …

Grant: Is that, is that … have you come to rest on
that then? Your view of Scripture or I mean as you look at the accounts of
Genesis then you don’t find your confidence in the credibility of Scripture,
the veracity of Scripture, you don’t find that reduced by that position?

Phyllis: No, I don’t. If perhaps a 20 … we were
saying today one day is a 24-hour, day and night is 24-hours. Perhaps a day
and a night were longer than that. We don’t know. But men did live to
be a lot longer and of course the earth’s atmosphere was different.
But in either view, in fact Ron said himself that he’s, you know, he
hasn’t really come to any conclusion about either view either. But perhaps
this was the revelation of God to Moses, and Moses was getting this information
at one time. And each day was a closure of the information, the revelation
that he was getting from God.

Grant: O.K. let me do this. Dr Lisle because you are,
as I understand it, your emphasis on the 24-hour period makes this a much
more critical issue.

Phyllis: Yes.

Grant: And Mary, rather Phyllis, her position would sound
like it would fall more into a position somewhere along the lines of Dr Ross.
So, your comment Dr Lisle about what really matters is that God did it. And
that it’s not whether it’s 24 hours or it could have been a longer
period of time, etc.

Lisle: I think the real issue is do we believe what God
has said in His Word. That’s the issue. Because if we can’t trust
the Bible in the book of Genesis, how can we trust it elsewhere? You know,
Jesus speaking to Nicodemus in John 3 says if I’ve told you of earthly
things and you believe me not how should you believe if I tell you of heavenly
things? See, the Bible talks about earthly things. It talks about creation
in 6 days. It talks about a worldwide Flood. And if we can’t trust the Bible
on these issues, how can we trust it when it talks about things like salvation?
So I would say it does matter. It’s very important that we, that we
read the Bible properly and that we believe what it teaches.

Grant: … apparently you don’t subscribe to that
position?

Phyllis: No, I do, but I’m saying that the day may have
been … we don’t know. God doesn’t say it was 24 hours. So, it might have been
longer than 24 hours. That’s what I’ve concluded.

Grant: And … Dr Ross

Ross: Yes, well I would agree with Phyllis that it doesn’t
matter whether you believe in 24-hour creation days or long time periods.
Both old earth creationists and young earth creationists trust the Bible implicitly.
They take it literally. They have different interpretations of what the literal
text is saying.

Phyllis: Yes.

Ross: But we’re not denying the inerrancy of Scripture. We’re not denying God’s basic salvation doctrine. That’s
something we can agree on. We’re both evangelicals, and this therefore
shouldn’t be an issue that divides the church. It’s not critical
for biblical inerrancy or salvation if we can just relax and let go of the
hostility of the debate,

Ross: I think this could get resolved in a few months.

Phyllis: Me too.

Grant: … I promised Matthew that I would get him
on because he’s been so patient. Matthew you’re on 100.7 KGFT.

Matthew (caller): Hi Dr Rob. This is a great subject
and I’m really glad that you’ve got two people on who are educated
and can speak clearly to each of their sides. I’m very impressed with
both. However, I have never heard that God created the sun on the first day.
That is the first … the first I’ve ever heard that is just a few
minutes ago. Because I do believe that when God says He created something,
that it’s created out of nothing. He didn’t make something from
something else. He created it. So if was already there, I have a bit of a
problem with that. And then my question, though, is if a day does not mean
a day then what does it mean? Does it mean a million years, a billion years?
You know 4.3 million … I mean if we can’t trust that it’s a day
then what is the Dr suggesting that it might be?

Grant: Dr Ross, I’m … this obviously falls
in your lap.

Ross: Yes, well Genesis 1:14
does not say that God created the sun, moon and stars. It says ‘let
the great light be’ it uses the verb hayah, not the verb bara’.
The verb ’asah comes up in verse 16 but it’s a parenthetical
note.

Ross: So God made the sun, moon and stars puts
it in the completed verb form which means that they were made at some unspecified
time in the past.

Ross: So the interpretation from Job 38 clarifying Genesis
1:3 that the sun, moon and stars are already in place at the beginning of
the first creation day would stand.

Ross: The second comment had to do with … refresh my memory?

Matthew: If a day doesn’t mean a day, what does
it mean?

Ross: Well, look up any lexicon, any Hebrew lexicon.
Look at the definition from the word yôm in the Hebrew, and you
will see that it has 4 different literal definitions: part of the daylight
hours, all the daylight hours, a 24-hour period or a long but finite period
of time.

Ross: So an answer to the question, which of those four literal
definitions you go with, you want to integrate all 20 creation accounts in
the Bible, and see which of those 4 definitions would allow you to read all
20 texts contradiction free. It’s not enough to take the Bible literally. We
have to take it literally and consistently. And in my book, A Matter of
Days, I show you how it’s only that fourth definition, a long but finite
period of time, that permits you to read the entire Bible free of internal
contradictions. That’s why I choose long periods of time. Now, notice it can’t
be infinite time. It’s a long but finite period of time.

Grant: Dr Lisle, you’ve had an opportunity to
look at Job 38. Any thoughts or response? It seems to fit well right here.

Lisle: Yeah, thanks for giving
me a chance to turn to that. I would say the whole passage is not literal
as Dr Ross believes because it says things like who stretched the line on
the earth in verse 5, who set its measurements, who stretched the line on
it. That’s not literal. And also, when the morning stars sang together …

Ross: Why not?

Lisle: I don’t believe that the stars literally sang.

‘When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?’

Lisle: So there is some metaphorical usage there and
in any case I don’t think it makes the point that he wants it to make. It
doesn’t in any way indicate that God made the stars on Day 1. And that they
somehow just appeared on Day 4. It’s very clear in the context … .

Grant: You know, if I may. If I may invite you at this
point to speak directly to one another on this because, I mean, this seems to
be a key point in both of your positions on this. So, as you direct that comment
to Dr Ross and, Dr Ross, your response.

Ross: Well, Job 38 is the beginning of a response from
God to the 5 scientists assembled there that are having this debate about
creation.

Ross: And so he’s basically hits them with a creation
test, and in that sense he is giving them a literal response saying he’s asking
them a series of 60 questions.

Ross: And the questions its, sure it’s set up as
poetry, but these are questions that are referring to real events of creation.
And in that sense I think we do take it literally, and what I notice as you
go through Job 38, it’s giving you clarification of what’s taking
place in the briefer description that we see in Genesis chapter 1.

So I think these poetic passages, Job 38 and Psalm 104, and
Proverbs 8 are highly instructive at the clarifying the scientific details
of Genesis 1 and actually gives us more scientific content then we find in
the non-poetic passage Genesis chapter 1.

Grant: Dr Lisle.

Lisle: O.K. again, I wouldn’t use the poetic passages
to try and change the meaning of the verses in Genesis 1. It’s very
clear from Genesis 1 that God created the stars on Day 4. Now, there are other
passages in the Bible that reflect on that and that’s not a problem …

Ross: ... changing the meaning in Genesis 1 but I am making
the point that we want to make sure that all the creation text in the Bible
are consistent.

Grant: And again Dr Lisle, I’m interested in your
response to that idea as being essential for understanding Genesis, the Genesis
account.

Lisle: Yeah, well you know the other verses in the Bible
are not going to contradict a straightforward reading on Genesis 1. Right, I mean even the poetic passages
when you read them as poetry they’re not going to contradict that. And
there are other verses as well. You know take for example, Mark
10:6 where Jesus comments that human beings, Adam and Eve, were made from
the beginning of creation. That wouldn’t make sense if the days were millions
of years because if God created Adam on Day 6 and those days were millions
of years long, Adam and Eve were created towards the end of creation not at
the beginning. It’s only if God created in 6 days that Adam and Eve
were created at essentially the beginning of creation as Jesus speaks in Mark
10:6. See there are other passages that reflect on Genesis 1 but they don’t,
far be it from changing the meaning to, you know, the stars not being made on
Day 4 or something like that. No they reinforce it. They reinforce a straightforward reading of the book of Genesis.

Ross: O.K. Mark 10 is dealing with marriage and divorce.
So it talks about the beginning, it’s talking about the beginning of
human marriage not the beginning of the universe. The context of that means
everything. And that’s why I think it’s so important that we integrate
all the creation content of the Bible not just take a verse here and a verse
there.

Lisle: Well, you know that it is very important that
we don’t pull things out of context, and the context is the beginning of creation
not the beginning of marriage if you read Mark …

Ross interrupts: … creation of what though? The creation
of marriage? Or the creation of the universe? Then when you look at the whole
chapter 10 in the book of Mark it’s dealing with marriage and divorce.

Lisle: I understand what it’s referring, and it talks
about the beginning … it doesn’t say the beginning of marriage. It says the
beginning of creation now and you need to take a look at that … .

Ross: Yeah but you know when you look at creation. It’s
creation of the earth, universe, life, human beings. I mean therefore the
context is critical. What kind of creation are we talking about? Notice that
Mark 10 nowhere deals with the universe or the earth. It’s focusing
on divorce and marriage. So it’s the beginning of humanity not the beginning
of the physical universe.

Lisle: We’ll let the listeners decide, but ‘at
the beginning of creation’ is what it says, Mark 10:6. ‘At the
beginning of creation God made them male and female’.

Grant: All right, what I’m going to do here; and
listen, I thank you, Matthew. You raise a very good question. All right, let’s
go to Randy before we hit this break. Randy you’ve been patient, go ahead.

Randy (caller): Yes, first of all let me start by saying
that as always Dr Grant I just, I love the guests that you get on and the topics
we get into. Personally, and I like being part of the discussion. Now that
having been said, and I realize that both of your guests tonight are very well-respected men in their particular field of endeavor. But I am going to take
exception with what Dr Lisle said. …

First of all let me say that I am not a learned man or a man
of letters or anything like that. So even though I love listening to and taking
part in discussions like this, I think that in reality they’re really
only important to the two sides that are arguing their case.

Now, personally I believe that the 6 days means 6 days and … but
it doesn’t matter. I don’t personally care if the earth is 10
trillion or 10 thousand years old and, because that is not really germane to
the issue of what the Bible is all about and the gospel. And even though it’s
great to take part in debates like this, folks like myself that try to do
a little Matthew 28[:19, 20] every now and then.

I’m not real good at it. You don’t need to go down
that road to prove the veracity of the Bible. The archaeological record and
the historical record there’s they back up the Bible all the way. So,
yeah, in terms, Dr Lisle, I do believe that there’s plenty of evidence
that you can believe the Bible without whether you believe in dinosaurs or
whatever. So, that was my exception there.

Grant: O.K. and Dr Lisle because this in your mind is
a most germane issue, please respond to my caller Randy.

Lisle: Yeah, you know I would say that it’s not a salvation
issue; however, it is foundational to the salvation issue. In other words,
the gospel is founded on Genesis if you think about it. I mean Jesus Christ
is a descendant of Adam. Now there are people who are, there are actually
people who are evolutionists—now I’m not saying that; I know that Dr
Ross is not one—but there are people who are evolutionists who don’t
believe in Adam and Eve and yet they still try to believe Scripture.

And although you can be saved, you can’t be saved and be logically
consistent with a position like that. And so I would say that it is crucially
important that we believe what God has written in His word, in His Word in
Genesis. You know if God said 6 days, but we’re not going to believe 6 days,
well God said salvation is through Jesus Christ
alone. Well, are we going to believe that?

So you see it’s important that we, if we’re going to be
logically consistent, it’s important that we read all of Scripture; and of
course I fully agree with you that archaeology
supports the Bible. And there have been lots of sciences that support
the Bible. I mean really the scientific evidence always supports a straightforward
reading of Scripture when you understand that science.

Randy: Well, yes and that’s a very good response. I appreciate
that. The only thing I would say is that most of the cases, say in my life
or the opportunities in my life, when probably most people … you’re going
to get your chance to talk about Jesus with people kind of like yourself.
And so it would be very, very difficult for me to learn both sides of yours
and Dr Ross’, and try to come off as any kind of a expert in either one to
answer their questions, which are not really germane to salvation.

Grant: I like to have a brief response from Dr Ross
and Dr Lisle on this. As Dr Lisle has indicated that salvation doesn’t
rest on this but a foundational understanding of salvation may. This is really
boiling it down for the person on the street. Why does it matter?

Randy: Exactly.

Grant: Dr Ross.

Ross: Well, I think that’s an excellent point.
I want to reclarify. I do believe that God created in a literal 6 __________
[tape unclear]. I do believe that we are all descended from Adam and Eve, and
that God created Adam and Eve supernaturally, specially, just thousands of
years ago.

Ross: So the differences between Jason and I really don’t
split apart on these critical salvation issues.

Grant: Comment, Dr Lisle.

Lisle: Yeah, one of the other things, you know, I was
speaking at a church—this was just a couple of weeks ago—and I
was doing the evidence that lines up with creation, things of that nature.
I had a guy come up to me afterwards and say, ‘boy, thank you so much’.
He says, ‘you know, I really found out’. He was a grandfather
of one of the students I was speaking to there. And the student told me he’s
been struggling with Christianity. He kind of wanted to be a Christian but
he felt that he couldn’t because in this case it was because of evolution.
He felt that because he couldn’t trust Genesis he couldn’t trust other parts
of Scripture.

You see this is why we take this so seriously at Answers
in Genesis. We believe that we need to be ready to give an answer to people
when they ask a reason for the hope that is in us as the Bible tells us in
1 Peter 3:15.

Grant: Now, how do you respond to Randy’s position
that in the course of communicating with other people and communicating with
people that would be in his normal context of life that these issues don’t
come up and are not that critical in the minds of people that he wants to
share Christ with? And you know he was also appealing to the fact that he
doesn’t either have the time or the ability at this point to fully comprehend
the position that you represent and the position that Dr Ross represents.
And then to be able to articulate some kind of a position as being necessary
for effectively communicating faith.

Lisle: O.K. well the Bible tells us to be ready [1 Peter
3:15]. So, that means we’re to be
ready for any kind of person. And that means the kind of person you’re going
to come into contact with. But there’s lots of different kinds of people.
And for some of them Genesis is not the issue, but I find for a lot of them,
it is. And so I would recommend that you be ready and that you study up to
defend your faith. And we have resources that are very easy to read. You know
if I talk over your head I apologize for that. But we do have resources, like we
have the Answers
Book, and it’s a very, very readable book and it gives you the top 20
questions that people ask about creation and how to answer them [see
chapters online]. We do have
resources that are a little higher up in terms of, a little bit more technical
like Refuting
Compromise; now it’s not technical but it is … it’s a little bit
more than what you’re looking for. But you can either get the Answers
Book or you can get Refuting
Compromise would be a great one. And that’s going to show you how
these issues play out.

Grant: … Dr Ross having heard Dr Lisle there
in his response how germane do you believe this is to understanding God’s
salvific acts?

Ross: Well, I think I agree with Jason Lisle in the sense
that this is not critical for salvation. I would say it’s not even critical
for things that are foundational to the salvation issue. But it is important
for evangelism. After all we’re dealing with a secularized nation now, and
they have a lot of ideas about the age of the earth and the age of the universe
and the literalness of Adam and Eve. And so these are important questions
to get discussions going that would lead them to consider it. The truth
claims of Jesus Christ ________ [tape unclear]. And therefore, this is something that
we shouldn’t just ignore. I mean that’s why I wrote the book, A Matter
of Days, because through the resolution of this controversy that’s splitting
the church, I think it can open the door for phenomenal evangelistic harvest.

Grant: … Norman
… You’re on.

Norman (caller): Sure, the question was for the 6-day
creationists, the literal 6-day creationists, it’s important to interpret
Genesis in a literal way because really the rest of the Bible is at stake.
If we can’t trust Genesis really what part of the Bible can we trust?
My questions for Dr Ross is, why is it so important that he look at this as
millions of years and the days being actually periods of time? What’s
at stake from his viewpoint if he’s not right? Is it just because we
look silly to the secular scientists? Or is there something more there?

Grant: Good question, go ahead.

Ross: An excellent question. You know we both take the
Bible to be literally [sic]. I believe it’s a literal 6 days of creation but
I take a different view on the length on the creation days.

Ross: And two reasons why I think it’s important.
Not important for salvation or biblical inerrancy for us but for evangelism,
is one that actually Norman mentioned.
That you know Jason and I differ by a factor of a million of the age of the
universe. I believe it’s 13.7 billion. He believes it’s a few
thousand years. And yet astronomers can measure that age of the universe now
to 1 percent precision, and we can measure the age of the earth to a hundredth
of a percent precision. So, our secular colleagues in astronomy look at us and
say, ‘Why can’t you guys settle your difference? I mean we have
a factor of a hundred million minimum between the measuring capabilities and
the difference between your two positions.’

Ross: So secular astronomers are challenging me to get
this thing settled in the Christian community because they say, ‘if
you’re not confident enough to settle something where you’ve got
a factor of a 100 million between the error bar and the difference between
your positions why should we listen to you on any issue that pertains to science
or creation?’

Ross: The second reason I think this is a more important
reason is that when I talk to scientists, you know, what are the things that
are most persuasive to them scientifically for proving that Jesus Christ is
the Creator? It was three things: the transcendent cosmic beginning of the
universe, an actual beginning of space and time, the anthropic principle.

Ross: We astronomers look at the universe. We see it
as supernaturally designed to allow for the existence of life, and human life
in particular, and the origin of life. In fact you may have heard that the
famous atheist Anthony Flew has now adopted a belief in the existence of God
on those 3 scientific evidences alone.

Ross: And I find this to be universal. But the interesting
thing about the scientific evidence for a beginning of space and time, the
design of the universe, and the origin of life, is that those all depend on
the universe and the earth being billions of years old. And a young earth
model, you don’t have the scientific evidence for the origin of life,

Ross: … the anthropic principle, transcendent
cosmic beginning. So you’re really having to throw away your most powerful
scientific arguments for the existence of the God of the Bible.

Ross: As far as salvation goes, I would argue it’s
not critical.

Grant: Dr Lisle, your response? Certainly a critical
point.

Lisle: O.K. first of all, astronomers can’t measure
the age of the universe. That’s a bit of a bluff I’m afraid.

Lisle: Remember age is not a substance
that can be measured, O.K. Now you can assume the big bang and you can assume
certain things. And you can assume this and assume that, and you can get a
number. But if you make other assumptions, you get different numbers. And
so that’s just one thing that I wanted to clear up. And also, I believe
in a transcendent beginning. I believe that God created the universe, and
it had a beginning. But the question is, when? And according to Scripture,
it’s thousands of years ago, not billions. Certainly not 13.7 billion
or whatever.

But you don’t need the big bang for that [i.e. transcendent
beginning and design in the universe]. I don’t understand, Dr Ross,
why you attach the big bang to a perfectly fine argument that will do well without
it. Why would you take a secular idea for origins and try to add it into the
Bible?

Ross: It’s a typical principle. If you look at
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, King David and Job, you notice that they say
3 things about the universe. That it’s traceable back to a transcendent
cosmic beginning, an actual beginning of space, time, matter and energy.

Ross: That it’s continuously expanding from
that point of beginning, and as the universe, it gets colder and colder as
it gets older and older.

Ross: Now there are dozens of different big bang models for the
universe. But that’s one thing they all agree with.

Ross: And to me it was very persuasive as a seventeen
year old to realize that 6 different Bible authors predicted all these cosmic
features thousands of years before Albert Einstein. No scientist even dreamed
of the idea that we live in an expanding universe that gets colder and colder
as it gets older and older. That’s traceable back to a cosmic singularity
until _______ [tape unclear] Albert Einstein came along, and yet we got Jeremiah, Isaiah, Job
and King David talking about this thousands of years ago. So this is a biblical
principle, and we should be rejoicing as Christians that astronomers have
proven that the Bible is accurate in predicting future scientific discoveries.

Grant: … Sam, go ahead. …

Sam (caller): And just back to what you were just talking
about, I would like to say that God created things with the appearance of age
and that includes the universe and so it could appear to be as old as Dr
Ross claims it to be. But only by appearance, the way God created it. He created
Adam with the appearance of age. He created a lot of things with the appearance
of age. I believe that the day is absolutely important and it has to
do with the gospel. And for various different reasons as have already been mentioned.
There’s no reason to go into those. But you know if it was millions
of years, why didn’t God say years and why did He use, instead, days?
He referred to this when He gave the Ten Commandments. He said God created
the days, in 6 days he created the heavens and the earth … the seventh
day he rested. Why use something that was arbitrary to apply to something
as specific as what we have as our seven-day workweek?

Grant: O.K. Dr Ross, if you would respond to that, and
thank you Sam.

Ross: Well, that was a very good question, and what might
help Sam to realize that yôm is the only word in biblical Hebrew
that could be translated to mean a long but finite period of time.

Ross: In the English language we’ve got dozens
of different words for that, but yôm is your only option in biblical
Hebrew.

Ross: With respect to appearance of age—and I don’t
know where Jason Lisle stands on this; it might be good to get his comments—but
we take the position at Reasons To Believe that God does not create
with an appearance of age.

Ross: Eight times it tells us in the Bible that God cannot
lie. He cannot deceive,

Ross: and that what He creates reveals truth and nothing
but truth. Psalm 19, the heavens declare the glory of God; His words are
written upon the heavens for all of us to read. That’s the word that
is trustworthy. So if the universe is young it should measure to be young.
If it’s old, it should measure to be young. God does not deceive us.

Grant: … Dr Lisle, there was a question directed
to you from Dr Ross if you’ll recall what that was, if you would like
to respond. … The appearance of age, yeah.

Lisle: … Sam’s point is well
taken, but I would phrase it a little bit differently. I wouldn’t say an appearance
of age, but I would say that God created the universe mature or fully functional.
It worked right from the beginning, and it did not need time to come to that
situation. And just as an example of that, think of the trees that God created
back on Day 3. Normally today, by today’s processes, trees take time to
grow but God created these first ones supernaturally. Now if you assumed that
God did not create them supernaturally, if you assumed that those first trees
came about by the same process that trees come about today, you would get
the wrong age. You would say oh that tree looks pretty thick that must have
taken quite some time to grow. And you’d be wrong. Your age would be much,
much too old. But I think that’s a good, a good point to remember is that
if we assume that something that was supernaturally created wasn’t, if we
assume it was naturally created, we can get an age that is very much inflated.

Grant: All right, let’s do this … I going
to attempt two more calls with the remaining moments that we have left. And
Bruce, sorry to have to put you under pressure to go right to a distilled
point or question, but time is getting away from us. You’re up Bruce.

Bruce (caller): Hi. I had kind of a question but more
of a thought. And that is, I don’t believe Christians have to believe
in an old earth because we know that carbon dating isn’t always accurate,
and the other two ways of measuring are calibrated on each other. Once one
is proven wrong, the other’s going to be proven wrong. I also believe
the astrologists, you know, they use the speed of light. And a couple years
ago, I heard a physicist who’s a creationist say that it’s been
shown that light is not constant. It’s actually slowing down. And I
questioned it with a scientist at our church at Argonne Laboratory, and she’s
a biologist, she didn’t know anything about it. So, she .. next week
she gave me two reports. One from a group of scientists from England,
and the other one was either from Holland or Germany. But both
those physicists, both teams, agreed that light is slowing down. They just
disagreed on how much …

Grant: So, what bearing would that have, only in the interest
of time, Bruce, because I’m getting short. What is, then, is that
leading you to conclude?

Bruce: Well, that one physicist who’s a creationist
said he used equations that show that lights that, appearing to be billions
of years old, was really generated 7 thousand years ago. But even the others
they may not agree it’s so young, but we cannot use the speed of light
as a judgment of how old the earth is.

Grant: O.K. let’s hold it right on that point there.
Dr Ross quickly and Dr Lisle.

Ross: Sure, I’ve addressed this in my book, A
Matter of Days. The astronomers that are claiming a slowing down the velocity
of light are talking about one part in 100 thousand over 12 billion years.
An incredibly tiny change

Ross: but if you go to our Reasons.org website you’ll
see a new listing for Today’s New Reason To Believe. Where we show a
new study that rates that one part in a 100 thousand as simply an artifact
of the way the quasar’s spectral lines are measured and the lab measurements
showing that it’s constant to better than one part in 10 to the 16 really
do stand. No evidence at all for any change in the slowing down the velocity
of light.

With respect to carbon-14, I can take Bruce to deep ice cores
where you have annual layers of ice and that calibrates the radiometric dating
and shows that it is indeed reliable.

Lisle: O.K. very briefly, this is referring to c decay,
and I bought this as the idea that the speed of light may have changed with
time and that’s one mechanism that God potentially could have used to get
starlight from very tremendous distances to earth. It doesn’t necessarily take
billions of years. It’s not the only mechanism and I’m not even sure that
it’s, it’s not the one I would probably lean toward. I would say that currently
there’s not a lot of evidence supporting the idea that the speed of light
is changing today. Now it may have changed in the past, but I don’t think
there’s a lot of evidence supporting that either. So it’s just one mechanism
that God may have used but there are several others as well.

Grant: Well, there was no way to put a period on this
conversation today. We can put a comma there. I respect both of you. I thank
you so much for your time and for your approach to this subject. And again
I’m grateful for your presence on the program. For those that could
not get on with your calls, thank you.